The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1887-01-13
PROHIBITION IN ANDERSON,

The Baptist Courier of last week con-
tains the following remarkable paragraph
for religious newspaper:
"Prohibition went into effect in Ander-
son on the 1st inst, and on the same day
the sale of liquors was resumed in Spar.
tanburg and Laurens, where for the past
several years Prohibition had been in
force. 1t is said that the change of SEN
,timent in the two last mentioned towns
is due to the failure to enforce the law
of which we hope our friends in Ander-
son will take due notice. We did not
approve the methods by which the victory
at the polls was gained in Anderson, but
80 far the result has been sustained by
the officers of the municipality, and un.
less higher authority aunuls their find
Jugs the sale of all intoxicating bever-
ages will be prohibited in that city for
the nexttwo years. The victory is but
half gained, however, when the bar
rooms are closed. The law must be en-.
forced, or what has been gained will soon
be lost; and to enforce the law requires
frmness in the administrators of the law,
and a resolute determination on the part
of the citizens that their wishes shall be
respected. Many Of those who vote
against the sale of liquor feel that their
responsibility ends at the polls-they
have recorded their disapproval OF the
liquor traffic, and with that are satisfied.
Those who lead in the contest before
election must lead in the more difficult
contest after election. We shall watch
the course of Prohibition in Anderson
with much interest"
We think it somewhat strange that the
Courier takes occasion this year tv con-
denim the methods by which the town
was carried dry, when it had nothing to
say two years.ago about the methods by
which it was carried wet, when one of
the saloon keepers took the registration
tickets of the mass of the colored voters
and held them until the day OF election,
and brougb, them up to the polls and
voted them as if they had been slaves.
In this way the majority of the intelli.
gent. christian people of the city were
compelled to submit for two years to the
license system. The Courier had no crit
icism of this mode of carrying elections,
and we think it was right, for it did not
come withinrits province. If not, then
we do not think the present case does,
either; but if it intends to criticise, it
should not confine its criticism to occa-
sions when no license prevails. We
know that two wrongs do not make a
right, and the fact that the saloon
keepers practiced wrong methods two
years ago does not make it right for the
prohibitionists TO practice wrong meth.
ods now, but the question is, have the
prohibitionists committed any wrong in
this election? We would be pleased for
the Courier to point out the methods by
which the City of Anderson was carried
dry that called forth its condemnation.
We presume, however, that its censure is
intended for the requirement of the State
registration tickets for voters TO register
in the city election, as this is the COM
plant in some quarters. AS matter of
fact this, in our view, simply conforms
the election to law.
The Chairman of the Committee
appointed to manage the campaign for
the dry side of the contest, went to a
lawyer and asked for his. opinion as TO
who is entitled to vote in city elections,
and after examining the law he gave it
ashis opinion that only registered voters
Of the State were entitled to vote in city
elections. The only qualification which
our charter has for suffrage is that the
party shall have resided six months in
the city, be qualified to vote for Members
of the General Assembly, and register
his name with the City Clerk and obtain
City Registration ticket Now, no
person is qualified to vote for Members of
the General Assembly except those who
are registered. The prohibitionists, there
fore, made the question, as they had the
right to do, and the City Council, COM
posed of three wet and three dry Alder.
men and the Mayor, by a unanimous
recorded vote sustained the point, and
directed the registration only Of regis.
tered voters who had resided six months
in the City. This question was made
ten days or more before the election. and
was not snap judgment, for any voter
who did not have State Registration
Ticket could have applied for registra-
ton, and upon being refused could have
applied to the Courts at Chambers for
mandamus to compel the Clerk to Reg.
lister him, and if his views of the law
was correct, the Judge would have re-
quired the Clerk to register him. The
prohibitionists could have waited until
the day of election and made this point,
and by doing so would have taken snap
judgment on the saloon keepers, but
they did not wish anything unfair.
They could have made their point in
ample time to have had the question
settled in the Courts before the election, if
the other side did not agree with them
as TO the law. The prohibitionists car.
ried the late election according 10 law,
in their judgment, and in doing so dis
qualified a number of prohibitionists
from voting. They had not fixed up for
the point, but made it just as we have
stated. If the Courier wants to con-
demn the enforcement of law, it can do
so, but we apprehend it will hardly
admit that such is its purpose. We
think the Courier should be more careful